Top Banner
Factors Affecting Truck Fuel Economy S E C T I O N N I N E 63 Factors Affecting Truck Fuel Economy
17

Factors affecting the fuel economy

Sep 11, 2014

Download

Travel

Fuel consumption is a function of
power required at the wheels and overall
engine-accessories-driveline efficiency.
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: Factors affecting the fuel economy

Factors

Affecting Truck

Fuel Economy

S E C T I O N N I N E

63

FactorsAffecting TruckFuel Economy

Page 2: Factors affecting the fuel economy

S E C T I O N N I N E

64

FactorsAffecting TruckFuel Economy

VEHICLE ANDENGINE DESIGNA. Performance Factors

Fuel consumption is a function ofpower required at the wheels and overallengine-accessories-driveline efficiency.

Factors that affect fuel consumptionat steady speeds over level terrain are:

Power Output-Engine-Accessory-Driveline System1. Basic engine characteristics; fuel

consumption vs. RPM and BHP.2. Overall transmission and drive axle

gear ratios.3. Power train loss; frictional losses in

overall gear reduction system.4. Power losses due to fan, alternator,

air-conditioning, power steering, andany other engine-driven accessories.

Power Required - Vehicle and TiresThe horsepower required for a vehicle

to sustain a given speed is a function ofthe vehicle’s total drag. The greater thedrag, the more horsepower is required.The total vehicle drag can be brokeninto two main components; aerodynamicdrag and tire drag. Factors affectingthese components are:

FactorsInfluencing Drag

Aerodynamic – Vehicle speedVehicle Frontal areaVehicle Shape

Tire – Vehicle Gross WeightTire Rolling Resistance

Both aerodynamic drag and tire dragare influenced by vehicle speed. It isimportant, though, to note that speedhas a much greater affect on aerodynamicdrag than on tire drag, Figure 1.

Gains in fuel economy can be madeby either optimizing or reducing some of the factors affecting drag.

B. Type of VehicleThe type of vehicle affects aerodynamic

drag through its size (frontal area) andshape. The following illustration showstwo tractor-trailer combinations which,as a result of their shorter height (h2 and h3), have smaller frontal areasthan the standard van-type trailer.

Trailer shape has a large impact on theaerodynamic drag of the tractor-trailercombination. Some examples of trailers thathave lower aerodynamic drag shapes are:

FIGURE 1

Vehicle Speedvs.

Aerodynamic Drag and Tire Drag

Vehicle Speed

Dra

g Fo

rce

30 40 50 60 70 80

Tire Drag

Aerodynamic Drag

Where: h1>h2<h3 Frontal Area = FA = (h) x (w) Where: h = Height; w = Width

h1

h2

h3

Page 3: Factors affecting the fuel economy

S E C T I O N N I N E

65

FactorsAffecting TruckFuel Economy

Drop frame trailers – Less “Open Air”space under the trailer. This also createsless airflow disturbance in crosswindconditions and thereby reduces theamount of drag.

Sharp Vertical Edge

Rounded Vertical Edge – Maintains“Attached” airflow along the trailersides, which reduces drag.

Airflow

Airflow

Airflow

Airflow

Page 4: Factors affecting the fuel economy

S E C T I O N N I N E

66

FactorsAffecting TruckFuel Economy

C. Use of Aerodynamic Drag Reduction Devices

With van-type trailers, certain add-ondevices are capable of reducing a vehicle’saerodynamic drag. These devices helpmaintain an “attached” airflow along thetrailer sides. Again, an increase in dragoccurs when the airflow becomes “detached.”

The favorable impact of roof fairingsis maximized when the vehicle is operatingin a “head-on” wind condition as shownabove. The effectiveness of a roof fairingis reduced when the vehicle encounters a“crosswind” (yaw wind) condition. Also,if the trailer height is lower than the topof the fairing, as in the case of a flat-bedtrailer, the fairing increases drag becauseit increases the vehicle’s frontal area. Useof a “roof shield” is less effective than a“roof fairing” because it doesn’t channelthe wind at the sides. Therefore, a “rooffairing” is preferred.

Vertical gap seal devices reduce dragby preventing the airflow from enteringthe “open air” space between the tractorand trailer. Unlike the roof fairing, theimpact of this device is maximized when the vehicle is operating in a yaw wind condition.

D. Engine and DrivelineCharacteristics

The use of wide torque band lowRPM engines and wide-step top geartransmissions, combined with proper rear axle ratios, leads to fuel economyimprovement when operated in thespeed and RPM ranges recommended by engine and vehicle manufacturers.

Note that a change in the overalldiameter of the drive axle tires can effectively alter the rear axle ratio andcould adversely affect fuel economy. Thedetermination whether a drive tire changeproduces an increase or decrease in fueleconomy depends on how much and inwhich direction engine RPMs are changed.

Side Gap Seal

Vertical Gap Seal

Airflow

Also of importance is the amount of gapbetween the back of the tractor cab andthe front of the trailer. The larger the gap,the greater the disruption to the airflowand the resulting drag. This becomeseven more important when encounteringcrosswind conditions (yaw wind). A ruleof thumb is for every 10'' over a 30'' gapthere is about a 1/10 drop in MPG.

Long Wheelbase Tractor

Yaw Wind Condition

Airflow

Gap

Gap

Page 5: Factors affecting the fuel economy

S E C T I O N N I N E

67

FactorsAffecting TruckFuel Economy

VEHICLE OPERATIONThe effect of tire overall diameter on

fuel consumption can be illustrated usingan engine fuel map, Figure 2. This is anexample of a typical part load brake specificfuel consumption (BSFC) engine map. Itshows lines of constant BSFC as a functionof engine BHP output (vertical axis) andengine RPM (horizontal axis).

A smaller diameter drive axle tireresults in an increase in engine cruiseRPMs, from point A to B. At point B theengine is consuming more fuel for thesame BHP output.

Proper drive train component matchingcan provide the most fuel efficient RPM/ground speed combination to maximizefuel economy. Engine RPMs can bedetermined using the following formula:

Engine RPM=V x TR x AR x (Tire RPM)60

Where:V = Vehicle Speed (mph)

TR = Transmission Ratio @Top Gear (e.g. 1.0 for Direct Drive)

AR = Rear Axle Ratio (e.g. 3.70)Tire RPM = Tire Revs Per Mile

(obtained from Goodyear’sEngineering Data Book or www.goodyear.com/truck)

Lines Of Constant BSFC

Increasing Fuel Consum

ption

Engine Speed - RPM

Engi

ne

Ou

tpu

t -

BP

H

600 900 1200 1500 1800 1200

360

330

300

270

240

210

180

150

120

90

60

30

A B

A = Cruise Point @ 0% Grade, 80,000 Lbs. GCW

FIGURE 2

A. GeneralConsider a typical tractor and van

combination operating at 80,000 lb.gross combination weight and at 55 MPHon a level highway. No aerodynamicdrag reduction devices are used oneither the tractor or the trailer. Usingbias ply tires in all wheel positions, theapproximate distribution of horsepowerrequirements is as follows:

HPItem Requirement Percent

Aerodynamic Drag 104 40

Tire Roll Resistance 97 38

Driveline Losses 36 14

Engine Accessories 20 8257 100

In this example, the horsepowerrequired to overcome bias ply tire rollingresistance is essentially the same as thatrequired to counteract aerodynamic drag.The total horsepower requirement canbe lowered with the use of radial ply tires.

Because radial ply tires have lowerrolling resistance than bias ply tires, tire horsepower requirements are lower.As a result, fuel economy is improved.And as the proportion of tire horsepowerrequirement on a vehicle increases, thegain in fuel economy due to using radialtruck tires increases. Some examples of tire horsepower requirements as apercentage of total vehicle horsepowerrequirements are given in Figure 3.

At lower Gross Combination Weights(at the same speed), the horsepowerrequired to overcome the tire rollingresistance is a smaller portion of thetotal brake horsepower required (BHP).This is also true as speed is increased (atthe same GCW). As the vehicle’s aero-dynamics are improved, as in the case ofa tractor pulling a tanker trailer ratherthan a van trailer, the BHP required toovercome aerodynamic drag is reduced.This has the effect of increasing thepercent contribution of tire rolling

resistance to the total BHP required. Inthis case, reducing tire rolling resistanceby switching to radials has a greaterimpact on reducing the total BHPrequired.

FIGURE 3Tractor-Trailer Horsepower Requirements

By Component

Engi

ne

Bra

ke H

ors

epo

wer

Req

uir

ed

400

300

200

100

0

Van Trailer

257237

179 172

357334

55 MPH

Bias RadGCW=78,500

Bias RadGCW=25,000

Bias RadGCW=78,500

65 MPH

Tanker Trailer

Key: HP Required to Overcome –

������������

������

������������

������

����������

������

Engi

ne

Bra

ke H

ors

epo

wer

Req

uir

ed

400

300

200

100

0

55 MPH

Bias RadGCW=78,500

Bias RadGCW=25,000

Bias RadGCW=78,500

65 MPH

������������

Aerodynamic Drag

Tire Rolling Resistance

Driveline Losses��Accessory LossesAccessory Losses

���������������

������

������������

������

����������

������

38%

211

46%

134

282260

23%

128

20%

41% 37%

192

42%

34%

17% 15%

32%28%

Source: Goodyear Maintenance CalculationsSource: Mack Truck Engineering, Allentown, PA, Oct. 1992

Page 6: Factors affecting the fuel economy

S E C T I O N N I N E

68

FactorsAffecting TruckFuel Economy

B. Type of HaulThe ideal type of haul for maximum

fuel economy consists of long distanceruns at steady moderate speed with aminimum of stop-and-go driving andwith a minimum of turning. Shorter runsinvolve more braking, acceleration andturning. The engine and tires operate at less than optimum conditions. Fueleconomy tends to be reduced. In somecases of stop-and-go driving, tires maybe operating “cold” part of the timewithout sufficient continuous drivingtime for adequate warm-up. A curve oftire rolling resistance vs. warm-up time as obtained from a laboratory test isgiven in Figure 4.

A 1975 study by the U.S. Departmentof Transportation and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencya

concluded that the type of haul (local,short-haul, or long-haul trips) has a strongeffect on fuel economy improvementattributable to radial tires.

The increased stop-and-go driving of the shorter haul reduces the fueleconomy gain due to radials. The results of the study are given below:

Fuel Economy Improvement Due ToRadial Tires Versus Driving Mode

Fuel EconomyDriving Mode ImprovementLocal 3 to 5%Short-Haul 4 to 8%Long-Haul 5 to 9%

aInteragency Study of Post-1980 Goals for Commercial Motor Vehicles; Revised Executive Summary, November 1976.U.S. Department of Transportation and U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency.

C. Vehicle SpeedAs vehicle speed is increased,

horsepower requirements to overcome theaerodynamic drag increase rapidly. Thereis also an increase in the horsepowerrequired to overcome increasing tirerolling resistance, though this occurs ata lower rate. The sum total horsepowerrequirement for a tractor-trailer vehicleincreases along a curve which has a continually steeper slope as speed isincreased. For example, Figure 5 showsthat the total horsepower requirement at65 MPH is 40 percent greater than at 55 MPH for the typical tractor and van-type trailer. As a result, fuel economy willfundamentally decrease as operatingspeed is increased from 55 to 65 MPH.

A calculated curve of the percent differencein MPG versus speed is shown in Figure 6.A reduction in MPG of about eight percent was found for every 5 MPHincrease in vehicle speed over 55 MPH.For 65 MPH, this would equal close to a mile-per-gallon loss in fuel economy.

D. Vehicle GrossCombination Weight

As gross combination weight isincreased, tire rolling resistance increases,and vehicle miles per gallon decreases,assuming speed is maintained constant.

To verify this point, fuel economytests were conducted at the GoodyearSan Angelo Proving Grounds onGoodyear over-the-road tractor-trailers.Unisteel radial tires were compared to

Super Hi-Miler and Custom Cross Ribbias ply tires on the same vehicles todetermine relative miles per gallon.a

Figure 7 shows the results of the testsalong with calculated curves passingthrough the test points. The effect ofvehicle gross combination weight on milesper gallon is shown. Note that as truckgross weight was increased, miles pergallon decreased with both the Unisteelradial tire and the bias ply tire; however,the Unisteel tire gave proportionatelygreater improvement in fuel economy as truck gross weight was increased.

Tests were run at the San AngeloProving Groundsa to determine the effectof Gross Combination Weight on vehiclemiles per gallon, comparing 11R22.5Unisteel radial to 11-22.5 bias ply tires at60 MPH. Figure 8 shows that at a GCW of

FIGURE 6Vehicle Speed

vs.Percent Change in MPG & BHP

Vehicle Speed (MPH)

% D

iffe

ren

ce i

n M

PG

30

50

40

3020

10

0

-10

-20-30

-40

-50

40 50 55 60 70

VehicleHorsepower Required

Miles-Per-Gallon

FIGURE 5Calculated

Horsepower Requirements Tractor, 13.5 Ft. High Van Trailer

vs. Vehicle Speed

11R22.5 Radial Tires GCW=78,500 Lb.

Truck Speed–MPH

Ho

rsep

ow

er R

equ

ired

200

30

100

40

200

50 60 70

300

400

AccessoriesDriveline Losses

Tire Roll. Resist.

Aero. Drag

Total Vehicle Requirements

A rule of thumb. Increase of 10 mph = decrease of 1 mpg.

FIGURE 4Laboratory Tests Truck Tires

Rolling Resistancevs.

Warm-Up Time With Capped Air

75 PSICold

95 PSICold

95 PSI Hot

110 PSI Hot

11-22.5 Bias PlyLR-F, 4760 Lb. Load

11R22.5 RadialLR-G, 5300 Lb. Load

Elapsed Time–Minutes

Un

corr

ecte

d R

oll

ing

Res

ista

nce

–Lb

.

0 1536

30

38

45

40

60 75 90 105

42444648505254

Source: Goodyear Maintenance Calculations

Source: Goodyear Fuel Economy Model Prediction

Page 7: Factors affecting the fuel economy

S E C T I O N N I N E

69

FactorsAffecting TruckFuel Economy

78,700 lb., the measured MPG advantageof the radial tire was 6.7 percent, while ata GCW of 46,000 lb., the correspondingvalue dropped to 1.6 percent. Thismeasured reduction in the miles per gallonadvantage of radial tires at the lighterload was more severe than theory wouldindicate. Calculations show that the 6.7percent advantage should drop to about3.5 percent at the lighter load.aThe Effects of Goodyear Unisteel Radial Ply Tires on FuelEconomy. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company Booklet dated 2/77.

E. DriverDriver operating procedures are

important factors in achieving maximumvehicle fuel economy. The potentialbenefits of lower vehicle aerodynamicdrag, lower tire rolling resistance, andmore efficient engines can be offset oreven negated by a driver running at ahigher speed.

General rules for the driver to follow are:b

• Keep accurate records of fuel used,routes taken and loads carried so

The test data above confirms that thefuel economy advantage of radial trucktires over bial ply tires increases with heavier vehicle Gross CombinationWeights.aTire Parameter Effects of Truck Fuel Economy. R.E. Knight, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company. SAE Technical Paper791043, November 1979.b“17 Tricks to Save Fuel and Save $$$$”; Pamphlet DOTHS804 547, June 1979.

you know if you are making anyimprovements.

• Try progressive shifting, don’t runagainst the governor on every shiftand stay 200-300 RPM below thegovernor at cruise (See Figure 9).

• Stay in as high a gear as possible. You can’t lug today’s engines if you canmaintain speed in any gear. Keep RPMlow: below the governor but abovethe minimum RPM recommended by the engine manufacturer.

• Eliminate unnecessary idling. Shortenwarm-up and cool-down times to the minimum recommended by theengine manufacturer. Don’t leave theengine idling while you eat lunch or have coffee.

• Drive defensively.• Cut down top speed. Each MPH over

55 costs you 2.2% in fuel costs!• Watch the fueling operation. If you

top the tank that valuable liquid couldspill or overflow later when you’reparked in the sun.

• Carry as big a load as you can. Run as few empty miles as you can.

• Anticipate traffic conditions.Accelerate and decelerate smoothly.

Tire care can also affect fuel economy.The most important thing a driver cando is to check inflation pressure oftenwith a calibrated tire gauge and makesure that tire pressure is maintained at arecommended high value. (See Figure 14for effects of inflation pressure on fuel economy.)

FIGURE 7Miles Per Gallon vs. Truck Gross Weight

V=55 MPH

WeightEmpty

Bias Tires

RadialTires

San Angelo Tests

12th Gear, G.R.=1.00

Texas Shuttle

10.00R20/10.00-20 Size Tires13.5 Ft. High VanCummins NTC 350 Engine Test Points

Gross Combination Weight (Thousands of Pounds)

Mil

es P

er G

allo

n

202.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

40 60 80 100 120 140

˚

FIGURE 9Progressive Shifting

GovernedRPM

Miles Per Hour0 10 20 30 40 50 60

IdleRPM

Engi

ne

RP

M

FIGURE 8Effect of Gross Combination Weight (GCW)

on MPG Advantage of Radial TiresPercent Increase in

MPG Radial/BiasTest DataGCW

78,70046,000

6.71.6

6.7*3.5

Calculated

*Assumed Same Value As Test Data

Source: Tricks to Save Fuel and Save $$$, DOT Pamphlet HS 804547, June, 1978

Source: Goodyear Testing Data

Source: Goodyear CFG Tests and Mathematical Calculations

Source: Tricks to Save Fuel and Save $$$, DOT Pamphlet HS 804547, June, 1978

Page 8: Factors affecting the fuel economy

S E C T I O N N I N E

70

FactorsAffecting TruckFuel Economy

A. Tire Rolling ResistanceThe primary cause of tire rolling

resistance is the hysteresis of the tirematerials/structure, its internal friction,which occurs as the tire flexes when thevehicle moves. Tire rolling resistanceacts in a direction opposite the directionof travel and is a function of both theapplied load and the tire’s inflation pressure (See Figure 10).

To accurately determine a tire’s rollingresistance, a controlled laboratory test isconducted. One method employed, is torun the tire against an electrically driven67'' diameter flywheel. A torque cell isused to measure the amount of torquerequired to maintain a set test speed at aprescribed test load condition. With thistorque value, additional adjustments areperformed to arrive at the tire’s rollingresistance. The laboratory test providesa procedure where environmental influences (such as ambient temperature,wind, and road surface texture) can beeither controlled or eliminated. Also,strict limits are placed on allowable variations in test speed, slip angle, appliedload, and specified test inflation. Thesecontrols insure test repeatability andallow the accurate assessment of a tire’strue rolling resistance.

Tire rolling resistance is commonlydefined in two ways:a. Pounds resistance per 1000 pounds

of loadb. Pounds resistance per pound load

(rolling resistance coefficient)

B. Types of TiresRadial Ply vs. Bias Ply

The significant differences betweenthese two tires are the angle of body pliesand the presence of belts. Figure 11 showsthe basic structural differences. Notethat the Unisteel radial tire incorporatesa single radial ply and a multiple beltsystem. The bias ply tire has six to eightdiagonally oriented plies and no beltsystem (although the bias ply tire usuallyhas two fabric “breakers” under the tread with same angle as the plies). Onesignificant advantage of the Unisteel tire is the relatively low internal frictioncompared to that in a tire using bias ply construction.

The lower internal friction of theUnisteel tire helps minimize operatingtemperatures and rolling resistance,major causes of tire wear and excess fuel consumption.

Unisteel radial ply tires can providefuel savings of six percent and morecompared to bias ply tires in over-the-roadtractor-trailer applications.

Tubeless vs. Tube Type Laboratory rolling resistance tests

indicate that by changing from a 10.00R20tube type tire to an equivalent 11R22.5tubeless tire in all wheel positions, again of about 2% in miles per gallon canbe achieved at 80,000 Ib. GCW.

Larger Diameter Tires Laboratory tests indicate that, under

the same load and inflation condition,larger diameter tires produce slightlylower rolling resistance, as in the case ofan 11R22.5 versus an 11R24.5. This canproduce an improvement in fuel economycoupled with the reduction in engine RPMsdue to the larger overall tire diameter ondrive axles. (See Section 1-D for theeffect of engine RPMs on MPG.)

TIRE SELECTIONAND MAINTENANCE

Unisteel Radial Ply Bias Ply

FIGURE 11

Radial Ply vs. Bias Ply Construction

FIGURE 10

Load

Direction of Travel

Tire Rolling

Resistance(Tire Drag)

Page 9: Factors affecting the fuel economy

S E C T I O N N I N E

71

FactorsAffecting TruckFuel Economy

Wide Base Super Single TiresGoodyear Proving Grounds tests showthat a fully-loaded tractor-van trailerusing Goodyear Super Single Unisteel15R22.5 tires instead of dual steel radial11R22.5 tires on tractor drives and ontrailer, obtains an average increase ofseven to eight percent in MPG.

Commercial fleet testing using loadedtractor-tanker trailers showed a nine percent gain in measured MPG throughthe use of wide base single 15R22.5 steel

radial tires instead of 11R22.5 steel radial tires in the dual positions. A comparison of the super single versusduals configuration is shown in Figure 12.

Retreaded Radial Tires Goodyear laboratory tests show that

the rolling resistance of newly retreadedradial tires is, on the average, the sameas radial tires with the full original tread.There are some differences due to typeof retread, but all newly retreaded radialtires tested exhibited considerably lowerrolling resistance than new bias ply tires.

Radial Tires on Trailer Axles The type of tire used on an axle has

a direct impact on the vehicle’s fueleconomy. Testing has shown that usingradial tires on trailer axles produces overhalf of the total improvement obtainedwhen converting a vehicle from all biasto all radial. Figure 13 details the totalpercent gain in MPG by switching frombias to radial tires and, of this total gain,

the percentage due to steer, drive, andtrailer tires. For maximum fuel economyas well as for best handling, radial tiresshould be used in all positions of a tractor-trailer unit. Using radial tires especiallydesigned for trailer application will alsoprovide an additional improvement infuel economy. For example, the radiallow profile G114 offers approximately a10 percent lower rolling resistance thanthe G159 low profile.

For a vehicle already equipped withradial tires and being switched to anothertype of radial, the percent contributionby axle to fuel economy will differ from that shown in Figure 13. A rule ofthumb for this case is that the front tirescontribute about 14 percent of the total,the drive tires about 39 percent, and thetrailer tires about 47 percent. It should benoted that the actual percent contributionmay differ from the above due to theeffects of vehicle loading, tire inflation,and tire type.

FIGURE 13

% Difference in MPGBias Tires vs. Radial Tires

-Control-All Bias

Wide Base Single

Dual Assembly

Bias

Bias

Bias

Radial

Radial

Radial

Bias

Bias

Radial

Bias

Radial

Bias

Radial

Bias

Bias

All Radial

Radial-Fronts

Radial-Trailers

Radial-Drives

% Gain % ofin MPG “All Radial”

vs. Control Gain in MPGRadial Fronts 1.0% 17%Radial Drives 1.5% 25%Radial Trailers 3.4% 58%

FIGURE 12

Radial Wide Base Single Tire vs. Radial Dual Tire Assembly

% Gain in MPG vs. Control = 5.9%

Source: Goodyear CPG Test

Page 10: Factors affecting the fuel economy

S E C T I O N N I N E

72

FactorsAffecting TruckFuel Economy

C. Tire Maintenance Inflation Pressure

Laboratory tests were conducted todetermine the effect of inflation pressureon the rolling resistance of the 295/75R22.5G159, G167, and G114 radial truck tires.This laboratory data was used to calculatethe corresponding effect of inflationpressure on the fuel consumption of atypical tractor-trailer at 55 MPH on alevel highway. The effect of inflationpressure on fuel consumption by axleposition was also studied. The results are shown on Figure 14.

A dual tire load of 4250 Ibs./tire anda steer tire load of 5390 Ibs./tire wereselected along with a specified inflationpressure of 100 PSI for all tires. Figure 14shows the percent loss in fuel economydue to the lower inflation pressures.

Operating a loaded tractor-trailerwith inflation pressures of all tires as lowas 70 PSI results in a calculated reductionin MPG of about five percent. The largestcontributor to this loss in MPG is thereduction in inflation pressure of thetrailer tires — it alone accounts for halfthe loss. Varying only the steer tire

inflation pressures results in the smallestpercent change in MPG.

It must be noted that the tractor-trailer load affects the percent reductionin MPG due to underinflation. Thelighter the GCW, the smaller the percentloss in MPG (for the same reduction intire inflation).

FIGURE 14

Radial Truck Tire Inflationvs.

Percent Change in MPG

Tire Inflation Varied:

Tire Inflation (psi)

% D

iffe

ren

ce i

n M

PG

GCW =78,780 lbs.V = 55 MPH

Front Axle

Drive Axles

Trailer Axles

Front, Drive andTrailer Axles

60

5.04.54.03.53.02.52.01.51.00.50.0

-0.5-1.0-1.5-2.0-2.5-3.0-3.5-4.0-4.5-5.0-5.5-6.0

65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120

A good rule of thumb is that every10 PSI reduction in overall tireinflation results in about a one percent reduction in MPG.

Source: Goodyear Fuel Economy Model Predictions

Page 11: Factors affecting the fuel economy

S E C T I O N N I N E

73

FactorsAffecting TruckFuel Economy

Alignment For optimum fuel economy on a tractor-

trailer, and also for optimum tire wear,tandem drive axles and tandem traileraxles should be maintained in properalignment. Alignment of the vehicle’standem axles should be considered asimportant as the alignment of the steeraxle tires. The importance of this is notonly reflected in the loss of MPG due to the increase in tire rolling resistance,but also in the increase in tire wear as a result of the greater amount of side-scuffing. The effects of drive axle andtrailer axle alignment is even greater due to the number of tires involved:eight vs. two.

Figure 15 illustrates the results of a

Goodyear fuel economy test program runat TRC of Ohio in 1986. These evaluationswere Type II tests conducted to SAE J1376standards. Tests #2 and #3 with steer axletoe-in of 1/4- inch, along with misalignedtandem axles of 1/2-inch total (differencein fore and aft distance between axlecenter lines, from one side of the vehicleto the other), did not result in a significantloss in MPG versus the specificationaligned tractor-trailer. The percentincrease in tire rolling resistance due tothe slip angles (under .2°) generated bythese misalignment conditions is small.What is of greater significance is theloss in tire treadwear life.

Increasing the steer tire toe-in to 3/8-inch and the tandem axle misalignment

to 1-inch in test #4 does produce a lossin MPG which is significant.

The greatest loss in MPG was produced in test #5 where a “dog-tracking”condition was simulated. The trailer tandem axles were misaligned by 1.5-inch though the axles were parallel toone another. The loss in fuel economywas about two percent in addition toincreased tread loss.

Treadwear As the tread is worn down, tire

rolling resistance decreases and vehiclefuel economy increases for both radialand bias ply tires. Proving Grounds testsshowed about a one percent increase in miles per gallon for radial tires withtread approximately 30 percent worn.a

Laboratory tests show about a 10 percentdecrease in rolling resistance for bothradial and bias ply tires with tread halfworn, and a 20 percent decrease for afully worn tire. (See Figure 16.) aTire Parameter Effects on Truck Fuel Economy by R. E.Knight, The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. SAE TechnicalPaper No. 791043, November 1979.

FIGURE 15

Tractor-Trailer Alignment Effects On Fuel Economy

FIGURE 16Effect of Treadwear on Truck

Tire Rolling ResistanceLaboratory Data

10.00R20/11R22.5 Sizes At Approx. Rated Dual Load And Inflation, LR-F

‘‘Tips For Truckers’’ FEA/DOT/EPA Document GPO 910-940 Calspan Rep. DOT-TST-78-1Goodyear TestCalculation, Based On Goodyear FuelEconomy Test

Bias Ply

Radial ply

Percent Treadwear

Per

cen

t R

oll

ing

Res

ista

nce

00

20

20

40

40

60

60

80

80

100

100

ALIGNMENTSteer Tire.

Toe-In: 0'' 1/4'' 1/4'' 3/8'' 3/8''Drive Axle.

Non-Parallel: 0'' 0'' 1/2'' 1'' 1''Trailer Axle.

Non-Parallel: 0'' 1/2'' 1/2'' 1'' 0''

*Non-Perpendicular to Frame, 1-1/2''% Improvementin Fuel Economy: -0.6 -0.8 -1.7 -2.2

Test #1 Test#2 Test#3 Test #4 Test #5

Source: Goodyear Fuel Tests at TRC of Ohio, 1986

Page 12: Factors affecting the fuel economy

S E C T I O N N I N E

74

FactorsAffecting TruckFuel Economy

ENVIRONMENTALCONDITIONSA. General

Conditions external to the vehiclecan have a strong influence on the fueleconomy achieved by a given driver andtractor-trailer/tire combination. Some ofthe greater influences are exerted by:

Winds Road Surface Ambient Temperature Terrain

B. Winds Headwinds and crosswinds reduce

truck fuel economy by increasing truckairspeed and/or yaw angle, thus increasingaerodynamic drag. To avoid excessivefuel consumption in sustained strongheadwinds, a decrease in truck highwayspeed is indicated.

Crosswinds also tend to diminish theeffectiveness of aerodynamic drag-reducingdevices such as cabmounted flow deflectors.Tailwinds are generally beneficial inincreasing fuel economy because of thereduced airspeed for a given highwayspeed. However, if the driver takesadvantage of the tailwind and increaseshis highway speed, the fuel economygains will be reduced or lost completely.

C. Road Surface The type of road surface can affect

tire rolling resistance. Smooth-texturedhighway surfaces provide the lowestrolling resistance, while coarse-texturedsurfaces give the highest tire rolling resist-ance and the lowest fuel economy.

In a test,b it was found that a coarsechip-and-seal pavement surface gave anincrease in passenger tire rolling resistanceof 33 percent over that obtained on atypical new concrete highway surface.Relative rankings of the test surfaces were:

Relative Rolling

Surface Resistance %Polished Concrete 88New Concrete 100 Rolled Asphalt

(rounded aggregate) 101 Rolled Asphalt (medium

coarse aggregate) 104 Rolled Asphalt

(coarse aggregate) 108 Sealed Coated Asphalt

(very coarse) 133

Another study on passenger tiresc

investigated the effect of road roughness(not surface texture) on rolling lossesand concluded:1. Road roughness increases both

rolling and aerodynamic losses (thelatter due to vehicle pitching action).

2. Road roughness significantly increasesvehicle rolling losses due to energydissipation in the tires and suspension.

3. Tests on rough roads led to increasesin rolling losses as large as 20 percent,in addition to introducing increasesin aerodynamic drag.

Truck fuel economy may be expectedto be influenced in a manner similar tothat of passenger cars; by the surfacecondition of the roadways traveled andby the type of materials used in thepavement—especially in asphalt/ crushedstone mixes. Tire treadwear as well asvehicle fuel economy may be influencedby the particular area of the countrybeing traversed, depending upon thesharpness and hardness of the localcrushed stone used in asphaltic concreteroad pavement mixes.

bL. W. DeRAAD “THE INFLUENCE OF ROAD SURFACETEXTURE ON TIRE ROLLING RESISTANCE”, SAETECHNICAL PAPER 780257 PRESENTED AT THECONGRESS AND EXPOSITION, COBO HALL,DETROIT, FEBRUARY 27 - MARCH 3, 1978.

cSteven A. Velinsky and Robert A. White, “Increased VehicleEnergy Dissipation Due to Changes in Road Roughness withEmphasis on Rolling Losses.” SAE Technical Paper 790653Presented at Passenger Car Meeting, Dearborn, Michigan, June 11-15, 1979.

Page 13: Factors affecting the fuel economy

S E C T I O N N I N E

75

FactorsAffecting TruckFuel Economy

D. Ambient TemperatureHigh ambient temperatures reduce

tire rolling resistance. High temperaturesalso reduce atmospheric density, resultingin lower aerodynamic drag. However, fueleconomy performance of non-turbochargeddiesel engines may be adversely affectedby high ambient temperatures, and thiswould tend to negate some of the gainsresulting from lower tire drag and loweraerodynamic drag.

Cold weather operation has an opposite effect: tire drag and aerodynamicdrag increase at the lower ambient temperatures. The greater thermal efficiency of internal combustion enginesat low ambient temperature is usuallycancelled by longer warm-up times andlonger idling times to maintain cab temperatures during stopover periods.Thus, wintertime fuel economy is generallylower than that obtained in the summer.

E. Terrain 1. Grades

Most proving grounds fuel economytesting is done on level terrain, and mostsimplified calculations relating varioustruck and tire parameters to truck fueleconomy also assume level terrain.

The effect of traveling up a grade is very significant in terms of reducingtruck fuel economy. Assuming a one percent grade and an 80,000 pound tractor-trailer, there will be a rearwardforce exerted by gravity of 80,000pounds x .01 = 800 pounds.

Proving grounds tests over a measuredmile on a road with a 0.1 percent gradeconsistently showed eight to ten percentlower miles per gallon, comparing goinguphill to the west with going downhillto the east. This difference was obtainedusing a typical tractor-trailer at 55 MPHand at a gross combination weight of78,500 pounds.

Traveling on a downhill grade improvesfuel economy and in hilly country helpsto counteract the losses in fuel economysustained by traveling upgrade.

2. Altitude As altitude increases, air density and

atmospheric pressure decrease. At 5,000ft. altitude, for example, air density in astandard atmosphere is 14 percent lessthan at sea level. This percent reductionin air density also applies to reduction inaerodynamic drag, all else being equal.

Tire rolling resistance is not affectedby altitude, per se, unless cold inflationpressure is set at lower altitudes and notchanged as altitude of operation increasesduring the course of the trip. For example,a tire with a gauge cold inflation pressureof 100 PSI at sea level, if taken to 5,000 ft.altitude at the same ambient temperature,would have a gauge cold inflation pressureof about 103 PSI. This added inflationwould tend to reduce tire rolling resistance.

Altitude effect on engine fuel economyperformance depends on the particularengine design and whether or not it issupercharged or tuned for high-altitudeoperation.

MPG vs. Average Daily Ambient Air Temperature

Average Daily Ambient Air Temperature

MP

G

0 20 40

5.4

5.2

5

4.8

4.6

4.4

4.260 80 100

**

**

*

**

***

*

** ****

*********** * *

******

***** * * ***

Page 14: Factors affecting the fuel economy

S E C T I O N N I N E

76

FactorsAffecting TruckFuel Economy

TIRE DESCRIPTIONAND SPECIFICATIONS

• Static Loaded Radius (SLR)—The distance from the road surface to the horizontal centerline of the wheel,under dual load

• Minimum Dual Spacing—The minimumdimension recommended from rimcenterline to rim centerline for optimumperformance of a dual wheel installation

• Loaded Section (LS)—The width ofthe loaded cross-section

Tire profile or cross-sectional shape isdescribed by aspect ratio (AR): the ratioof section height (SH) to section width(SW) for a specified rim width. For agiven tire size, the aspect ratio for aGoodyear radial truck tire is the same as for a bias ply truck tire.

Safety WarningSerious Injury May Result From:• Tire failure due to underinflation/

overloading/misapplication—followtire placard instructions in vehicle.Check inflation pressure frequentlywith accurate gauge.

• Explosion of tire/rim assembly due toimproper mounting—only speciallytrained persons should mount tires.When mounting tire, use safety cageand clip-on extension air hose to inflate.

Cross-Sectional View of Typical Tire

Goodyear Unisteel Low Profile Radial

7. Chafer—A layer of hard rubber thatresists rim chafing.

8. Radial Ply—The radial ply, togetherwith the belt plies, withstands theburst loads of the tire under operatingpressure. The ply must transmit allload, braking, and steering forcesbetween the wheel and the tire tread.

9. GG Ring—Used as reference forproper seating of bead area on rim.

10. Bead Core—Made of a continuoushigh-tensile wire wound to form ahigh-strength unit. The bead core isthe major structural element in theplane of tire rotation and maintainsthe required tire diameter on the rim.

Terms Used To Describe Tire/Rim Combination• Outside Diameter (OD)—The

unloaded diameter of the tire/rim combination

• Section Width (SW)—The maximumwidth of the tire section, excludingany lettering or decoration

• Section Height (SH)—The distancefrom the rim to the maximum heightof the tire at the centerline

1. Tread—This rubber provides theinterface between the tire structureand the road. Primary purpose is toprovide traction and wear.

2. Belts—Steel cord belt plies providestrength to the tire, stabilize thetread, and protect the air chamberfrom punctures.

3. Stabilizer Ply—A ply laid over the radial ply turnup outside of thebead and under the rubber chaferthat reinforces and stabilizes thebead-to-sidewall transition zone.

4. Sidewall—The sidewall rubber mustwithstand flexure and weatheringwhile providing protection for the ply.

5. Liner—Layers of rubber in tubelesstires especially compounded forresistance to air diffusion. The linerin the tubeless tire replaces theinnertube of the tube-type tire.

6. Apexes—Rubber pieces with selected characteristics are used tofill in the bead and lower sidewallarea and provide a smooth transitionfrom the stiff bead area to the flexible sidewall.

1

3

5

6

4

8

9

2

7

10

Section

Width (SW)

Static LoadedRadius (SLR)

FlangeHeight

Rim Width

OutsideDiameter (OD)

Section Height (SH)

Minimum Dual Spacing

Loaded Section(LS)

Page 15: Factors affecting the fuel economy

S E C T I O N N I N E

77

FactorsAffecting TruckFuel Economy

SUMMARYThe average fuel costs of a given

trucking fleet are related to two factors:

• Average fleet miles per gallon• Average fuel cost per gallon

While it seems little can be done atthe present time to reduce fuel cost pergallon, there are steps that can be takento increase average fleet miles per gallon.

The miles per gallon achieved by agiven truck depends on many factors,the major ones being:

• Vehicle, Engine and Accessory Designand Maintenance

• Vehicle Operation• Tire Selection and Maintenance• Environmental Conditions

Major fuel-saving steps to apply totrucking operations are:

1. Use fuel-efficient high torque rise,lower RPM engines.

2. Use engine accessories with reducedhorsepower requirements, such asclutch fans, synthetic lubricants, etc.

3. Use aerodynamic drag reductiondevices such as flow deflectors androunded trailer fronts and corners on tractors pulling van-type trailers.Cover open-topped trailers with atightly-stretched tarpaulin.

4. Use radial tires in all wheel positions,trailer as well as tractor.

5. For best fuel economy, do not allowradial tires to operate below 95 PSIcold inflation pressure.

6. Do not exceed the tire’s rated speed; operate truck fully loaded as much of the time as possible to increaseton-miles per gallon.

Page 16: Factors affecting the fuel economy

S E C T I O N N I N E

78

FactorsAffecting TruckFuel Economy

APPENDIXFuel Economy Test Procedures

There are three fuel economy testprocedures which have been developedby the Society of Automotive Engineers(SAE) and which are currently beingused by vehicle manufacturers, tire manufacturers, and by some fleet owners.These offer a standardized method toevaluate either a complete vehicle or acomponent. Consideration has been givento the effects of environmental conditions(such as those described in Section 4),and their effect on fuel economy results.This is accomplished by requiring theuse of a control vehicle which is runsimultaneously with the test vehicle.Environmental conditions should affectboth vehicles in a similar manner so thatfor a set of tests, the ratio of either thefuel used or the MPG of the test andcontrol vehicles should be relatively constant even though the actual valuesof either the fuel used or the MPG mayvary from test to test.

A brief description of each procedureis listed along with some of their importantrequirements.

A. SAE Type IThe SAE Type I procedure is best used

to evaluate a component which can beeasily switched from one vehicle to another.

The procedure requires two vehiclesof the same specification; these are runsimultaneously and are identified as vehicles “A” and “B.”

The minimum mileage required forone complete test cycle is 200 miles.This is composed of a 100 mile roundtrip with the test component on vehicle“B” and then another 100 mile round tripwith the test component on vehicle “A.”Since a round trip must start and finishat the same location, the minimumlength of the outbound and inbound test leg is 50 miles.

On the outbound test leg vehicle “A”leads vehicle “B” (approximately 200 -250 yard separation). At a point halfwaythrough this test leg (approx. 25 miles)vehicle “A” slows down to allow vehicle“B” to take the lead. At the completion ofthe outbound leg, fuel tanks are weighedor fuel meter readings are recorded. Onthe inbound test leg, vehicle “B” leads “A”(same separation distance as outboundleg). Also at a point halfway through the test leg “B” slows down to allow “A” totake the lead. Upon completion, fuel isweighed or meters recorded. The testcomponent is then switched betweenvehicles and another round trip is made.

The amount of fuel used by vehicles“A” and “B” when they are operating with the test component is compared tothat used by both vehicles without thetest component.Test speed — as requiredVehicle loads — within five percent

of each otherVehicle warm-up — representative of fleet

operation or not lessthan 45 minutes attest speed

B. SAE Type II The SAE Type II procedure is best

used to evaluate a component whichrequires a substantial amount of time for removal and replacement.

This procedure also requires twovehicles, though they do not have to beof the same specification. The vehiclesare identified as “C” and “T.” Vehicle “C”is the control vehicle and as such is notmodified during the course of the test;vehicle “T” is the test vehicle which isused to evaluate the test component.

The minimum mileage for a completetest is 240 miles. This is composed ofthree valid test runs of 40 miles (minimum)each with vehicle “T” running a baselinecomponent (control component) andthen three valid test runs of 40 miles(minimum) each with vehicle “T” runningthe test component. Vehicle “T” starts off first; after approximately 5 minutesvehicle “C” begins its run. The test runstarts and finishes at the same location.

For each test run the amount of fuelused by vehicle “T” is compared to thatused by vehicle “C” in the form of a T/Cratio—the quantity of fuel used by vehicle“T” divided by the quantity of fuel usedby vehicle “C.” To be considered validtest runs, three T/C ratios within a twopercent band must be obtained. This mayrequire one or more additional test runs.Test speed — as required Vehicle loads — not required to

be the sameVehicle warm-up — minimum of one

hour at test speed Test run time — elapsed time of the

test runs must bewithin .5%

Page 17: Factors affecting the fuel economy

S E C T I O N N I N E

79

FactorsAffecting TruckFuel Economy

C. SAE Engineering TypeThe SAE Engineering Type test provides

standardized procedures to evaluate fueleconomy for different modes of operation,such as Long Haul Cycle, Short HaulCycle, Local Cycle, and Transit Cycle.This procedure is more controlled thaneither the Type I or II tests both in termsof test site conditions and test procedures.The effect of this is reflected in greaterrepeatability. This procedure is best runon a test track.

The procedure requires two vehiclespreferably of the same specification. The vehicles are identified as “C” and “T.”Vehicle “C” is the control vehicle and isnot modified during the course of thetest. Vehicle “T” is the test vehicle whichis used to evaluate the test component.

Long Haul Cycle: The minimum mileage for a complete

test is 180 miles. This is composed ofthree valid 30 mile test runs with vehicle“T” running the baseline component(control component) and three valid testruns with “T” running the test component.The start time of the vehicles should be staggered such that they don’t aerodynamically interfere with eachother. Halfway through each test run (15 miles) the vehicles are to come to acomplete stop, idle for one minute andthen accelerate back to the test speed. A test run starts and finishes at the samelocation. If this procedure is not run on a track it can be handled by running 15 miles outbound and 15 miles inbound.

For each test run a T/C ratio isobtained. This is the MPG of vehicle“T” divided by the MPG of vehicle “C.”A test is considered valid if for the threeruns (or more) the spread of T/C ratiosdoesn’t exceed three percent of themean value.Test speed — 55 MPH Vehicle loads — as requiredAmbient temperature — 60 to 80°Wind velocity — average wind speed

not to exceed 15 MPH

Vehicle warm-up — minimum of 1 hour

at 55 MPH